Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(b)(6) provides for the deposition of a public or
private corporation. It requires a written notice that states
“with reasonable particularity the matters for
examination.” Fed R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). Upon such
notice, the served party is required to designate a witness
and “prepare [him or her] to fully and unevasively
answer questions about the designated subject matter.”
Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Const. Co., 251
F.R.D. 534, 539 (D. Nev. 2008). As part of that requirement,
the served party “must prepare [the] deponent[] by
having [him or her] review prior fact witness deposition
testimony as well as documents and deposition
exhibits.” Id. at 539

B.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) Sanctions

Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2) provides for sanctions if a party's
designated witness for a Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition
fails to obey an order, such as failing to appear at a
noticed deposition. While the 30(b)(6) witness may be
physically present, it is well established that producing a
30(b)(6) witness who is not adequately prepared is
“tantamount to a nonappearance.” Id. at
543; see also U.S. Bank, NA v. Recovery Servs. Nw.,
Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23900, *15 (D. Nev. Feb. 17,
2017). The Court may issue any of the sanctions provided by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(I)-(vi), as well as reasonable
expenses caused by the failure to appear. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(b)(2)(c).

Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(d)(3) provides for sanctions instead of or in
addition to the sanctions provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) if a
30(b)(6) witness fails to attend the deposition. It provides
essentially the same sanctions that are provided by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(c), mainly, reasonable expenses caused
by the failure to appear. The Court has “great
latitude” in fashioning sanctions pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. See Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d
1420, 1425 (9th Cir. 1985).

Topics
10, 11, and 12 of the deposition notice served on Defendant
City of North Las Vegas requested the 30(b)(6) witness to be
prepared to testify on the number and facts and circumstances
of search warrant services where varying levels of force were
used on dogs present during the execution of a search
warrant. Docket No. 141-1 at 3. Plaintiffs submit
Defendants' objection to the scope of the deposition
topics during the deposition was untimely. Docket No. 141 at
5. In response, Defendants submit they do not object to the
scope of these deposition topics. Docket No. 144-2 at 1;
see also Docket No. 144 at 5. Defendants further
submit that Officer Garcia “reviewed over a hundred
search warrant plans from 2010 to 2015... [h]e reviewed prior
deposition testimony regarding the noticed topics.”
Docket No. 144 at 2. Defendants contend that “there is
no physical way to determine every search warrant service at
which a dog may have been present because whether a dog is
present at a search warrant service is not inherently tracked
in any report.” Docket No. 144-2 at 2.

The
Court finds that Officer Garcia was prepared, and answered
the questions as best he could with the information
available. Defendants did not claim, and do not claim, that
topics 10, 11, and 12 are overbroad. Therefore, Defendants
have made no objection to these topics, timely or otherwise.

B.
Plaintiffs' Failure to Allow for Review

Defendants
submit Plaintiffs' counsel should have permitted the
30(b)(6) witness to review the police report introduced by
Plaintiffs' counsel at the deposition and return to the
deposition. Docket No. 144 at 3. In reply, Plaintiffs submit
that Defendants' offer for the witness to
“interpret” the police report was insufficient
because “interpreting” a police report during a
deposition for the first time would not yield the facts and
circumstances Plaintiffs sought. Docket Nos. 144 at 6, 147 at
5. Plaintiffs also submit that Defendants were aware of
Plaintiffs' counsel's busy schedule ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.